69 replies to this topic

[bjkaras]

The ideal telescope is the one that gets lots of use.

[MrsM75]

The ideal telescope is the one that gets lots of use.

Yep Ed Ting said in his youtube videos, the scope that SHOW you the most, is the scope that you USE the most. And I'm not even an Ed Ting fan. And I agreed with him.

[Jon Isaacs]

The ideal telescope is the one that gets lots of use.

 

Often people promote the idea that the most used telescope is a small telescope because it's easier to setup... 

 

That just might be the case for some.. For me, it's the other way around.. I want a capable scope, it may take more effort to setup but the energy comes from the anticipation of the evening ahead.. 

 

My idea is to have a range of telescopes that not only provide a wide range of capabilities, smaller refractors for those big wide views along with larger apertures to go deep.. Additionally, having a variety allows me to choose a scope that matches my energy level.. Ease of setup does come into play but it's relative.  Both at home and in the high desert, it's the second largest scope that gets the most frequent use... These days, from my backyard, I use the 10 inch more often than the 13.1 inch. From our darker sky place, the 16 inch gets more use than the 22 inch.

 

Jon

[Illinois]

Often people promote the idea that the most used telescope is a small telescope because it's easier to setup... 

 

That just might be the case for some.. For me, it's the other way around.. I want a capable scope, it may take more effort to setup but the energy comes from the anticipation of the evening ahead.. 

 

My idea is to have a range of telescopes that not only provide a wide range of capabilities, smaller refractors for those big wide views along with larger apertures to go deep.. Additionally, having a variety allows me to choose a scope that matches my energy level.. Ease of setup does come into play but it's relative.  Both at home and in the high desert, it's the second largest scope that gets the most frequent use... These days, from my backyard, I use the 10 inch more often than the 13.1 inch. From our darker sky place, the 16 inch gets more use than the 22 inch.

 

Jon

I enjoy what I have now is several refractors and 16 inch dobsonian.  Use telescopes since 1975 and now if I pick one telescope for lifetime would be 10 inch f5 dobsonian with feathertouch focuser and good red dot finder.  It’s great for everything from planetary to faint deep sky objects. Various power from 30 up to around 300! 

[Harry Jacobson]

This is seriously a YMMV topic. My eyes get the most frequent use for viewing the sky, even in the murkiness of urban Providence. Followed by my 10x30 and 15x50. Lately my AT80EDT with RACI diagonal is getting frequent use because it’s so new to me.

 

After a lifetime being a techno geek I want to stay simple. I’ve no more desire for bigger or more. I like the small steps from naked eye through my binoculars to my RACI scope. I’ve lifetime experience making things work. I’ve no desire to acquire or swap. I make what I have work for me.

 

When I do want to view through bigger or more I go to nearby observatories and to Skyscrapers, my local club.

[Sketcher]

Hello,
I was wondering what the "ideal" small backyard telescope could be... surrounded by bushes and houses up to 45° altitude, with two distinct parts, and in semi-rural Bortle, with nearby streetlights...
Thank you
Paul

Hi Paul,

 

So, what would be the ideal small telescope for you and your backyard?

 

What would a "small" telescope be for you?  We've already seen a variety of responses from people who consider a wide variety of telescopes to be "small" for them, but in order to properly address your question, it's necessary to have a better idea of what "small" means to you.  For example, does it have to be small enough for you to be able to carry by yourself, all in a single trip, from one part of your yard to another part of your yard "X" feet away?  I mean seriously, some people consider 10-inch, 12-inch, and even larger Dobsonian telescopes to be "small", while to someone else a small telescope might be a 2 to 4-inch, relatively short-tubed, light weight refractor on a light tripod and mount -- something small enough and light enough for the average person to carry in its entirety from one part of their yard to another in the course of a single observing session.

 

I don't quite get the part about the "bushes and houses up to 45° altitude".  How's that going to influence your ideal telescope?  Any astronomical telescope ought to still be usable under such conditions, and those obstructions are going to block portions of the sky from any backyard telescope.  Your "ideal" backyard telescope is going to have to be good enough for you to actually use and enjoy using from your own backyard.  If that means lowering your expectations, then you'll just have to lower your expectations.

 

The only thing I get from "with two distinct parts" is that your yard has two distinct parts, and you want to be able to move your ideal telescope from one part of the yard to the other in the course of a single observing session.  If that's so, then how do you want to move your ideal telescope -- by carrying it by hand in 1, 2, or 3 trips? -- by using wheelbarrow handles and wheels?  -- by some form of motorized vehicle?

 

The 'semi-rural Bortle with nearby streetlights' will adversely affect any visual telescope when it comes to deep-sky observations.  Are you trying to say that you have certain expectations of your ideal backyard telescope concerning your visual observations of deep-sky objects?  If so, it's possible that no visual telescope is going to be able to fulfill your idea of "ideal" when used from your backyard.  Unrealistic expectations can be an absolute "killer" when it comes to user satisfaction with a telescope.  It's best to have no expectations other than the expectation of being able to see whatever one can see -- without being overly concerned by those things that are found to be invisible or disappointing.  The fact of the matter is:  Regardless of ones' telescope, one will find some objects to be invisible; but whether or not one ends up being disappointed is going to depend on one's expectations.  If one has no expectations, then one isn't going to be disappointed.

 

If you don't know what you want in the way of an ideal, small, backyard telescope; then there's no way anyone else is going to be able to narrow down your search.  You might as well make your best guess (on your potentially ideal telescope), purchase it, use it, and discover what changes (if any) would be necessary in order to arrive at a telescope that comes closer to your ideal.

 

You're not alone in not knowing what to get.  Many people don't have a clue as to what they want prior to making a purchase.  Why else do you suppose there is so much "stuff" in the CloudyNights classified ads?  Some of us know what we want, know what we're purchasing, and are happy with what we get.  But it's scary how many end up buying stuff just to turn around and put that same stuff up for sale on the next day or shortly thereafter.

[bjkaras]

Often people promote the idea that the most used telescope is a small telescope because it's easier to setup... 

 

That just might be the case for some.. For me, it's the other way around.. I want a capable scope, it may take more effort to setup but the energy comes from the anticipation of the evening ahead.. 

 

My idea is to have a range of telescopes that not only provide a wide range of capabilities, smaller refractors for those big wide views along with larger apertures to go deep.. Additionally, having a variety allows me to choose a scope that matches my energy level.. Ease of setup does come into play but it's relative.  Both at home and in the high desert, it's the second largest scope that gets the most frequent use... These days, from my backyard, I use the 10 inch more often than the 13.1 inch. From our darker sky place, the 16 inch gets more use than the 22 inch.

 

Jon

Yes, it's the same with me. My ideal telescope is the largest one that I can set up and use by myself. I want to see as much as possible. I use my 6" from my yard though and save the 10" for the dark sites.

Edited by bjkaras, 16 June 2024 - 08:14 PM.

[revans]

I think large scopes come into their own at dark sky sites.  For bright surburban viewing I'm happy with northing larger than a well mounted 4 inch apo refractor as long as it is well accessorized for what you want to pursue.  For observing the moon and planets some good eyepices and a barlow lens and possibly a good binoviewer.  For photographing them a good planetary camera also.  For deep skiy observing, a night vision equipped eyepiece.  For deep sky AP, a good camera, filters, and acquisition software.  For solar work, a quality white light filter for sunspots. And possibly a Daystar Quark Chromosphere or Prominence filter with a UV/IR cut filter and a decent planetary type camera.  In the last case, an achromat is OK and designs with multiple lens elements such as Petzval designs are not recommended as far as I know. 

 

With the right accessories, a 4 inch refractor can punch above its weight in many different aspects of the hobby.  Unfortunately, depending on where your interest lies, the accessories can be expensive.  But ease of use and portability make this size of scope pretty ideal for suburban skies from my point of view.  Of course you can accessorize almost any size scope, but I think that in suburban skies there are diminishing returns in what can be seen as aperture increases and portability and ease of use can become substantial issues as aperture increases.  Better, in my opinion, to stay small but accessorize well.

 

Rick

[gwlee]

Larger instruments show me more than smaller instruments under the light dome of a big city or a dark site, but I use smaller instruments more because they are more convenient for me, and show me a lot more detail than my naked eyes. 

Edited by gwlee, 25 June 2024 - 12:22 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

 

I think large scopes come into their own at dark sky sites.  For bright surburban viewing I'm happy with northing larger than a well mounted 4 inch apo refractor as long as it is well accessorized for what you want to pursue.

 

For me, a 4 inch is limited as a planetary/double star scopes. It's an easy scope but lacks the capability of a 10 inch or larger scope.

 

I do not consider a 10 inch scope to be small but I consider it to be an easy setup, for me.. not for everyone.. just me in my backyard.

 

Jon

 

 

[revans]

For me, a 4 inch is limited as a planetary/double star scopes. It's an easy scope but lacks the capability of a 10 inch or larger scope.

 

I do not consider a 10 inch scope to be small but I consider it to be an easy setup, for me.. not for everyone.. just me in my backyard.

 

Jon

This is true.  I'm not a double star person and only look at the most beautiful handful of them.  A 4 inch refractor is really too small for detailed planetary or lunar viewing or imaging.  An 8 or 10 inch scope is needed for that.  I have a C9.25 and a Mewlon 250.  I use them mostly when I want to do lunar or planetary imaging at very long focal length.  It is probably true that to really get to know the moon you need 340x.  Unfortunately, my atmosphere rarely allows more than 200x. 

 

I think Percival Lowell started studying Mars in New England with a 6 inch refractor.  New England skies are typically too turbulent for larger instruments at higher powers.  I guess he ended up with a much larger instrument based in the southwest.  But I suspect he imagined more than he really saw under even those conditions.

 

Rick

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

Ideal backyard telescope ? That's like what's the ideal car... 

You will get a wild variety of responses, all of them valid because they address specific users' needs.

[gwlee]

One’s opinion of the “ideal backyard telescope” often changes over time. For example, the seeing here seldom supports more than 200x. I find exit pupils less than 1mm uncomfortable. 8 inches is the smallest instrument that’s capable of 200x with at least a 1mm exit pupil, so that’s what I considered to be my ideal backyard telescope for many years.

 

An 8” scope has become more scope than I want to handle at this site in the last few years though. Now, I am doing all my observing with a 72mm refractor and handheld binoculars, which are more ideal these days. 

Edited by gwlee, 25 June 2024 - 07:20 PM.

[AstroVPK]

My backyard tops out at 19.0 mag/sqrarcsec which is far too bright IMO to do anything interesting vis-a-vis the deep sky. So when it comes to DSOs, the aim is to just be able to show the biggest and best to friends and family when the occasion arises.
I enjoy looking at Jupiter, and Mars. One of these days, I'll bring myself to start learning my way around the Moon. Nothing is more important for looking at planets than patience and the willingness to keep trying looking for that perfect night when everything comes together. You want a light, easy to use scope that is mechanically perfect.

The other sort of target that I occasionally enjoy observing from the backyard is tight doubles. Many of the requirements for this sort of viewing are similar to those for planetary and lunar observing.

I think 8" is plenty of aperture. More would not be unwelcome, however it should not detract from dragging the scope out, so it really depends on the weight and length of the scope. On that note, I think that it is important to keep the f-number relatively slow. For distinguishing fine detail on Jupiter or Mars, or for splitting tight doubles, keeping the secondary mirror small is advantageous, hence I prefer staying no faster than f/6. Some of you will argue that a larger secondary does not make as much of a difference in practice - without being able to compare a range of apertures with different focal lengths side-by-side, it's hard for me to come to the same conclusion.

Given my conditions, interests, and physique, my ideal backyard telescope is my 8" dobsonian. It used to be an Orion XT8, but at this point, the only original bits are the tube, secondary spider and vanes, and primary cell.

I want to make the scope even lighter by moving to a truss design - I'm reading Highe's book and am inspired to consider a Serrier design. I'd like to also add tracking, both because it allows for even more detailed planetary observing, as well as since I'd like to start looking into variable star photoelectric photometry.

My only other backyard scope is my son's 4.5" Starblast. I use it for solar observing during the daytime.

[Jon Isaacs]

 

I think 8" is plenty of aperture. More would not be unwelcome, however it should not detract from dragging the scope out, so it really depends on the weight and length of the scope. On that note, I think that it is important to keep the f-number relatively slow. For distinguishing fine detail on Jupiter or Mars, or for splitting tight doubles, keeping the secondary mirror small is advantageous, hence I prefer staying no faster than f/6. Some of you will argue that a larger secondary does not make as much of a difference in practice - without being able to compare a range of apertures with different focal lengths side-by-side, it's hard for me to come to the same conclusion.

 

I spend a lot of time in backyard splitting close doubles. The seeing can be excellent and I can push the limits of my 10 inch and sometimes the 13.1 inch, it F/5.5.. under 0.5"

 

For doubles as well as planetary, my experience is that aperture is more important than focal ratio. 

 

The effect of the secondary is not difficult to see, just increase the effective size of the secondary with a paper disk.. the difference between a 20% CO and a 25% is very subtle.

 

A commercial 8 inch F/6 will have a secondary of 22%-25%, a 10 inch F/5 of 25%, a 12 inch F/5 around 23%. These differences are inconsequential.

 

On the other hand, the difference in resolution and fine scale contrast between an 8 inch, 10 inch and 12 inch Dobs is substantial.. over the years, I've owned all three.. this photo was taken more than 20 years ago. Soon after, I parted ways with the 8 inch F/6, I still have the other two..

 

 

Jon

[12BH7]

All that I know is that after 35 years of having good sized scopes, I've been using my 8" SCT a HECK of a lot more these days.

[Jehujones]

The ideal telescope is the one that gets lots of use.

Isn’t that just saying the same thing twice?

[gene 4181]

 The Ideal telescope is the one that will give you the best views of the things you want to see from the site where its most often used.  Timothy Ferris, Seeing in the Dark.

[Jehujones]

I don't think the OP is looking for definitions.

 

I recently went through a period of using a 5" Mak on a light EQ mount which was very handy for backyard use but the 10" dob is still "Ideal" for me as a backyard scope.

[Jon Isaacs]

 The Ideal telescope is the one that will give you the best views of the things you want to see from the site where its most often used.  Timothy Ferris, Seeing in the Dark.

 

In my experience, it's not that simple.  There is no doubt in my mind that my 25:inch F/5;Obsession provided the best views of the things I want to see from the site I use/used most often. 

 

But I downsized to a 22 inch F/4.4 because it is more practical , easier to use.. 

 

Jon